When Ehrman says His disciples didn't believe in His Divinity at first, is he talking about within Christ's lifetime on earth, or afterwards? It's certainly true that His Divinity was not something all the disciples acknowledged at first.

If he means that Christ's Divinity is something Christians made up long afterwards, then of course that's absurd.

I'm reading Daniel Boyarin's The Jewish Gospels, which explains at length how the Jews in fact were expecting Christ to be Divine, or at least in some way to participate in Divinity. The main evidence is the Book of Daniel (where the title "Son of Man" originates) and the Book of Enoch, which elaborates on that vision. Boyarin has some crazy interpretations of these prophecies (like how they're in some way relics of polytheism), but if you manage to ignore his absurd theories, he does lay out the case pretty nicely that the notion of the Messiah as God the Son was not merely an invention of Christians, but was very much part of Judaism as practiced at the time of Christ.

I'm reading Daniel Boyarin's The Jewish Gospels, which explains at length how the Jews in fact were expecting Christ to be Divine, or at least in some way to participate in Divinity. The main evidence is the Book of Daniel (where the title "Son of Man" originates) and the Book of Enoch, which elaborates on that vision. Boyarin has some crazy interpretations of these prophecies (like how they're in some way relics of polytheism), but if you manage to ignore his absurd theories, he does lay out the case pretty nicely that the notion of the Messiah as God the Son was not merely an invention of Christians, but was very much part of Judaism as practiced at the time of Christ.

Johnathan,

I agree with most of this. I might have to check out that text. Of course I'd swap "messiah as God the Son" with "messiah as Son of God".

As an aside, "Son of Man" in some sense goes all the way back to the Akkadians as a term for humans in general. It implies humility.

And here is one example of the Gospel of St. Mark where Christ affirms His Deity:

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" -St. Mark 14:62

What ordinary creature can claim to sit at the right hand of God? Who can possibly claim to be a co-occupant of God's throne? When Christ makes this claim He is claiming to share in God's glory and honor. It's no wonder the High Priest condemned Him to death a few verses afterwards.

The Byzantine Father John of Damascus says:

"We hold, moreover, that Christ sits in the body at the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place? Right hands and left hands belong to what is circumscribed. But we understand the right hand of the Father to be the glory and honour of the Godhead in which the Son of God, who existed as God before the ages, and is of like essence to the Father, and in the end became flesh, has a seat in the body, His flesh sharing in the glory. For He along with His flesh is adored with one adoration by all creation." -An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter II.

And here is one example of the Gospel of St. Mark where Christ affirms His Deity:

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" -St. Mark 14:62

What ordinary creature can claim to sit at the right hand of God? Who can possibly claim to be a co-occupant of God's throne? It's no wonder the High Priest condemned Him to death a few verses afterwards.

It can be argued what is revealed there. But you did catch the previous verses where his earliest followers were not claiming him to be God?

They sorta don't after this either, especially if you stick with the oldest manuscripts.

But this is no weakness for the claims of Christianity, unless you buy into the (and you seem to) the notion that at some moment everything was revealed in its fullness and nothing has altered since.

That is not Orthodoxy. (EDIT: or anything else for that matter.)

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 01:57:34 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

^An argument from silence is hardly an argument at all. The premise of your post seems to be "His disciples didn't directly call Him God, therefore the earliest Christians did not necessarily believe He was God." So what if not all the disciples claimed Christ was God explicitly at one point in time? That hardly proves Ehrman's thesis that the early Christians didn't believe He was God. And you didn't even directly address what I said; how can a creature claim to be co-enthroned with God?

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 02:09:23 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

^An argument from silence is hardly an argument at all. So what if not all the disciples claimed Christ was God explicitly at one point in time. That hardly proves Ehrman's thesis that the early Christians didn't believe He was God.

Actually an argument from silence can be a legitimate argument. You have to get beyond rhetoric for PtA.

But, really that is the not the problem here.

Maybe Nick can take over or someone else who has read the Bible. Till I get more time or care.

BTW, you've changed the claim Nick made in jest that started all this.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 02:09:12 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Sorry, we can continue if you would like. What exactly were you trying to get at in your previous post? Thanks.

My point was that the Jews expected a few things of the Messiah:

His relationship with God was different from the prophetsHe was to be king of IsraelHe was to be Son of God (I.E. God's anointed ruler)He was to deliver Israel out of his iniquities

and more.

That's what most early Christians who believed that Jesus was the Christ probably thought at first. They hadn't pinned down just how he related to God, what sort of "El/power" he was or manifested, and they certainly weren't talking about anything like "the divine nature".

By the time you get to the Gospel of John, you have a proto-Orthodox coalescing of ideas about Jesus's divinity, brought together using a bit of Hellenistic Jewish thought. We believe this is theologically correct. It is important to note, however, that even in the Gospel of John, it is debatable whether or not Christ is called "God" in the sense of a proper name. The New Testament typically refers to the Father specifically using "Theos" as a proper name. Christ receives "Theos" as a descriptor, that is "The Word Was Divine". Even the Creed could perhaps be translated "True Divinity of True Divinity" rather than "God of God" in the sense of proper name God of proper name God.

Bart Ehrman simply thinks the later Gospels are incorrect historically and doesn't really care about the metaphysical truth/lack thereof.

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

In order to understand Ehrman, you must read The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, by Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael J. Kruger.

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

In order to understand Ehrman, you must read The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, by Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael J. Kruger.

Thanks for the tip.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

And here is one example of the Gospel of St. Mark where Christ affirms His Deity:

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" -St. Mark 14:62

What ordinary creature can claim to sit at the right hand of God? Who can possibly claim to be a co-occupant of God's throne? It's no wonder the High Priest condemned Him to death a few verses afterwards.

It can be argued what is revealed there. But you did catch the previous verses where his earliest followers were not claiming him to be God?

They sorta don't after this either, especially if you stick with the oldest manuscripts.

But this is no weakness for the claims of Christianity, unless you buy into the (and you seem to) the notion that at some moment everything was revealed in its fullness and nothing has altered since.

That is not Orthodoxy. (EDIT: or anything else for that matter.)

Actually, everything WAS revealed in its fullness to the Apostles at Pentecost. We don't believe in the development of doctrine the way the Catholics do (or the way e.g. Cardinal Newman interpreted the introduction of new doctrines).

Note that this is not the same as saying that every doctrine was fully defined in human language from the beginning. That clearly isn't true, but it doesn't contradict what I said above.

Sorry, we can continue if you would like. What exactly were you trying to get at in your previous post? Thanks.

My point was that the Jews expected a few things of the Messiah:

His relationship with God was different from the prophetsHe was to be king of IsraelHe was to be Son of God (I.E. God's anointed ruler)He was to deliver Israel out of his iniquities

and more.

That's what most early Christians who believed that Jesus was the Christ probably thought at first. They hadn't pinned down just how he related to God, what sort of "El/power" he was or manifested, and they certainly weren't talking about anything like "the divine nature".

By the time you get to the Gospel of John, you have a proto-Orthodox coalescing of ideas about Jesus's divinity, brought together using a bit of Hellenistic Jewish thought. We believe this is theologically correct. It is important to note, however, that even in the Gospel of John, it is debatable whether or not Christ is called "God" in the sense of a proper name. The New Testament typically refers to the Father specifically using "Theos" as a proper name. Christ receives "Theos" as a descriptor, that is "The Word Was Divine". Even the Creed could perhaps be translated "True Divinity of True Divinity" rather than "God of God" in the sense of proper name God of proper name God.

Bart Ehrman simply thinks the later Gospels are incorrect historically and doesn't really care about the metaphysical truth/lack thereof.

This is where you're wrong. The idea that Christ would be Divine was not something unheard of before Christianity. The Jews rejected Christ not because he claimed to be God, but because they didn't believe he was the Christ, since they expected Christ to give them worldly power. If Christ had freed them from the Romans and given them authority over the earth, they would certainly have acknowledged his Divinity.

And here is one example of the Gospel of St. Mark where Christ affirms His Deity:

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" -St. Mark 14:62

What ordinary creature can claim to sit at the right hand of God? Who can possibly claim to be a co-occupant of God's throne? It's no wonder the High Priest condemned Him to death a few verses afterwards.

It can be argued what is revealed there. But you did catch the previous verses where his earliest followers were not claiming him to be God?

They sorta don't after this either, especially if you stick with the oldest manuscripts.

But this is no weakness for the claims of Christianity, unless you buy into the (and you seem to) the notion that at some moment everything was revealed in its fullness and nothing has altered since.

That is not Orthodoxy. (EDIT: or anything else for that matter.)

Actually, everything WAS revealed in its fullness to the Apostles at Pentecost. We don't believe in the development of doctrine the way the Catholics do (or the way e.g. Cardinal Newman interpreted the introduction of new doctrines).

Note that this is not the same as saying that every doctrine was fully defined in human language from the beginning. That clearly isn't true, but it doesn't contradict what I said above.

Nope. "We" don't.

A faith once delivered unto the saints.

Saints come forth in time.

From all aspects of looking at this issue, no case can be made for some sorta full revelation at any point in time.

We can argue this from history or philosophically.

It is a non-starter.

You have development of doctrine within the NT itself. The Gospels themselves. With a single epistle. Chapter.

If it ain't in language. It ain't.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 05:42:37 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

^The book of Enoch teaches that the Messiah was preexistent, so this indicates that the Divinity of the Messiah was not unheard of before Christianity, as Johnathan says.

Even if we were to agree to this. It has no bearing on the matter. You gotta take your Scripture seriously. If you believe what Jonathan does, then explain to me the purpose of the revelatory nature of Scripture within time?

Before Christ.

Within Christ's life.

After His Ascension.

Till now.

We are getting far afield from the observation which is clearly Scriptural that Jesus' followers did not think He was God from moment zero.

This seems to me to be an important element within the story of redemption.

BTW, if it makes you happy, I nearly knocked myself out earlier after replying to you. Still seeing a star or two. (I do hope you understand this to be irony.)

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 05:51:00 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

^The book of Enoch teaches that the Messiah was preexistent, so this indicates that the Divinity of the Messiah was not unheard of before Christianity, as Johnathan says.

Even if we were to agree to this. It has no bearing on the matter. You gotta take your Scripture seriously. If you believe what Jonathan does, then explain to me the purpose of the revelatory nature of Scripture within time?

Before Christ.

Within Christ's life.

After His Ascension.

Till now.

We are getting far afield from the observation which is clearly Scriptural that Jesus' followers did not think He was God from moment zero.

This seems to me to be an important element within the story of redemption.

BTW, if it makes you happy, I nearly knocked myself out earlier after replying to you. Still seeing a star or two. (I do hope you understand this to be irony.)

The Apostles didn't believe he was divine from the very beginning, but they did realize that he was later on in his ministry.

There is solid scriptural evidence that the Apostles believed him to be divine, especially in John. John presents a picture of Jesus which really highlights his divinity. In fact, Christ says outright that he is God in that Gospel(8:58).

Nobody is saying that all the Apostles believed he was divine from the get-go. What people here are arguing against Ehrman's statement, which basically is saying that for the first hundred or so years of Christianity, Christians believed that Jesus was a mortal man, which is false.

^The book of Enoch teaches that the Messiah was preexistent, so this indicates that the Divinity of the Messiah was not unheard of before Christianity, as Johnathan says.

Even if we were to agree to this. It has no bearing on the matter. You gotta take your Scripture seriously. If you believe what Jonathan does, then explain to me the purpose of the revelatory nature of Scripture within time?

Before Christ.

Within Christ's life.

After His Ascension.

Till now.

We are getting far afield from the observation which is clearly Scriptural that Jesus' followers did not think He was God from moment zero.

This seems to me to be an important element within the story of redemption.

BTW, if it makes you happy, I nearly knocked myself out earlier after replying to you. Still seeing a star or two. (I do hope you understand this to be irony.)

The Apostles didn't believe he was divine from the very beginning, but they did realize that he was later on in his ministry.

There is solid scriptural evidence that the Apostles believed him to be divine, especially in John. John presents a picture of Jesus which really highlights his divinity. In fact, Christ says outright that he is God in that Gospel(8:58).

Nobody is saying that all the Apostles believed he was divine from the get-go. What people here are arguing against Ehrman's statement, which basically is saying that for the first hundred or so years of Christianity, Christians believed that Jesus was a mortal man, which is false.

Thank you, neon_knights.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

That's what most early Christians who believed that Jesus was the Christ probably thought at first. They hadn't pinned down just how he related to God, what sort of "El/power" he was or manifested, and they certainly weren't talking about anything like "the divine nature".

And here is one example of the Gospel of St. Mark where Christ affirms His Deity:

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" -St. Mark 14:62

What ordinary creature can claim to sit at the right hand of God? Who can possibly claim to be a co-occupant of God's throne? It's no wonder the High Priest condemned Him to death a few verses afterwards.

It can be argued what is revealed there. But you did catch the previous verses where his earliest followers were not claiming him to be God?

They sorta don't after this either, especially if you stick with the oldest manuscripts.

But this is no weakness for the claims of Christianity, unless you buy into the (and you seem to) the notion that at some moment everything was revealed in its fullness and nothing has altered since.

That is not Orthodoxy. (EDIT: or anything else for that matter.)

Actually, everything WAS revealed in its fullness to the Apostles at Pentecost. We don't believe in the development of doctrine the way the Catholics do (or the way e.g. Cardinal Newman interpreted the introduction of new doctrines).

Note that this is not the same as saying that every doctrine was fully defined in human language from the beginning. That clearly isn't true, but it doesn't contradict what I said above.

Nope. "We" don't.

A faith once delivered unto the saints.

Saints come forth in time.

From all aspects of looking at this issue, no case can be made for some sorta full revelation at any point in time.

We can argue this from history or philosophically.

It is a non-starter.

You have development of doctrine within the NT itself. The Gospels themselves. With a single epistle. Chapter.

If it ain't in language. It ain't.

You're wrong. That's all there is to it. Read the appendix on doctrinal development in Fr Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. I'll just quote this paragraph:

Quote

In general, the view of theological thought is this: the Church's consciousness from the

Apostles down to the end of the Church's life, being guided by the Holy Spirit, in its essence is

one and the same. Christian teaching and the scope of Divine Revelation are unchanging. The

Church's teaching of faith does not develop, and the Church's awareness of itself, with the course

of the centuries, does not become higher, deeper, and broader than it was among the Apostles.

There is nothing to add to the teaching of faith handed down by the Apostles. Although the

Church is always guided by the Holy Spirit, still we do not see in the history of the Church, and

And here is one example of the Gospel of St. Mark where Christ affirms His Deity:

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" -St. Mark 14:62

What ordinary creature can claim to sit at the right hand of God? Who can possibly claim to be a co-occupant of God's throne? It's no wonder the High Priest condemned Him to death a few verses afterwards.

It can be argued what is revealed there. But you did catch the previous verses where his earliest followers were not claiming him to be God?

They sorta don't after this either, especially if you stick with the oldest manuscripts.

But this is no weakness for the claims of Christianity, unless you buy into the (and you seem to) the notion that at some moment everything was revealed in its fullness and nothing has altered since.

That is not Orthodoxy. (EDIT: or anything else for that matter.)

Actually, everything WAS revealed in its fullness to the Apostles at Pentecost. We don't believe in the development of doctrine the way the Catholics do (or the way e.g. Cardinal Newman interpreted the introduction of new doctrines).

Note that this is not the same as saying that every doctrine was fully defined in human language from the beginning. That clearly isn't true, but it doesn't contradict what I said above.

Nope. "We" don't.

A faith once delivered unto the saints.

Saints come forth in time.

From all aspects of looking at this issue, no case can be made for some sorta full revelation at any point in time.

We can argue this from history or philosophically.

It is a non-starter.

You have development of doctrine within the NT itself. The Gospels themselves. With a single epistle. Chapter.

If it ain't in language. It ain't.

You're wrong. That's all there is to it. Read the appendix on doctrinal development in Fr Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. I'll just quote this paragraph:

Quote

In general, the view of theological thought is this: the Church's consciousness from the

Apostles down to the end of the Church's life, being guided by the Holy Spirit, in its essence is

one and the same. Christian teaching and the scope of Divine Revelation are unchanging. The

Church's teaching of faith does not develop, and the Church's awareness of itself, with the course

of the centuries, does not become higher, deeper, and broader than it was among the Apostles.

There is nothing to add to the teaching of faith handed down by the Apostles. Although the

Church is always guided by the Holy Spirit, still we do not see in the history of the Church, and

we do not expect, new dogmatic revelations.

As long as you have a quote from a book. Fr. Michael might have some incredible method to account to give some credibility to this incredulous statement, but I doubt it.

Again, historically and philosophically (for most folks, I could imagine a few ways of getting around the issue perhaps) it is just untenable.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

I gotta admit, if true, Christianity would be a cool fictionalized religion... Orthodoxy anyway...

Make up your mind, Asteriktos. This chopping and changing is getting rather tiresome. You're not a fourteen-year-old with raging hormones which make it hard for you to think straight, you're (supposedly) a grown man.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I'm still waiting for all the factual primary source evidence of our Lord

stay blessed,habte selassie

Well...boy, where to start ! He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,

"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death"

Plus the gospels are themselves astonishingly historically accurate, This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

According to the gospels Jesus was condemned by the Jewish high court on the charge of blasphemy and then delivered to the Romans for execution. Not only are these facts confirmed by independent biblical sources like Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, but they are also confirmed by extra-biblical sources. From Josephus and Tacitus, we learn that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority under the sentence of Pontius Pilate. From Josephus and Mara bar Serapion we learn that the Jewish leaders made a formal accusation against Jesus and participated in events leading up to his crucifixion. And from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, we learn that Jewish involvement in the trial was explained as a proper undertaking against a heretic. According to Johnson, "The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion." The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact."

Plus the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.Or Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death.we’re talking about sources that are 30, 40, 60 years later. And traditions on which those are based that go back to within five or seven years after the crucifixion :therer's over 5,000 NT manuscripts ! The earliest we have is a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

And on and on....so, don't think they all lied about knowing Jesus's mom either...

On another note, unless Christ really was a historical human, most of Christianity becomes incoherent i.e., absolute (God) becoming one with the particular (an individual), Christ actually assuming human nature and redeeming it, the eternal coming into time, contigincy and universality etc etc so that literally the whole of existence is reconciled reconciled by Christ. Pretty much all theology and nearly everything written by the saints would be non-sensical if you take away the philosophical grounding of Christ's humanity.

I'm still waiting for all the factual primary source evidence of our Lord

Well...boy, where to start ! He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament.

Would you care to name any actual manuscripts from 50AD-100AD that mention these?

Quote

The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,

We already discussed Josephus, the oldest manuscripts for his works are from the 6-7th century, hardly a primary source

Yes, we do indeed know that Pilate is a proven historical figure, but what has that got to do with Jesus Christ exactly?

Quote

"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death"

How can they prove these assertions without factual, primary source evidence exactly?

Quote

Plus the gospels are themselves astonishingly historically accurate, This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

The oldest manuscripts from the Gospels are from the Third century AD, so even they are not primary sources

Quote

According to the gospels Jesus was condemned by the Jewish high court on the charge of blasphemy and then delivered to the Romans for execution. Not only are these facts confirmed by independent biblical sources like Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, but they are also confirmed by extra-biblical sources. From Josephus and Tacitus, we learn that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority under the sentence of Pontius Pilate. From Josephus and Mara bar Serapion we learn that the Jewish leaders made a formal accusation against Jesus and participated in events leading up to his crucifixion. nd from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, we learn that Jewish involvement in the trial was explained as a proper undertaking against a heretic. According to Johnson, "The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion." The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact."

[/quote]

We don't have old copies of Tacitus, many scholars have even argued what he have are forgeries. This is probably not the case, they are probably authentic but not old enough. We do have cross-referenced manuscripts from the Fifth century AD which mention Tacitus. Same thing with Babylonian Talmud. So thus far our paper trail ends around the 300s, a couple centuries away from Jesus Christ. Again, does anyone have any primary source evidence or more inferences?

stay blessed,habte selassie

Plus the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.Or Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death.we’re talking about sources that are 30, 40, 60 years later. And traditions on which those are based that go back to within five or seven years after the crucifixion :therer's over 5,000 NT manuscripts ! The earliest we have is a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

And on and on....so, don't think they all lied about knowing Jesus's mom either...

On another note, unless Christ really was a historical human, most of Christianity becomes incoherent i.e., absolute (God) becoming one with the particular (an individual), Christ actually assuming human nature and redeeming it, the eternal coming into time, contigincy and universality etc etc so that literally the whole of existence is reconciled reconciled by Christ. Pretty much all theology and nearly everything written by the saints would be non-sensical if you take away the philosophical grounding of Christ's humanity.

[/quote]

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

We already discussed Josephus, the oldest manuscripts for his works are from the 6-7th century, hardly a primary source

Josephus was born in the year 37. His works are not from the 6th century

Here is his wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

He meant the date of the physical manuscript copies we have today.

Then they werent written during his lifetime ??

Josephus was a near contemporary of Jesus and wrote extensively about the destruction of Jerusalem and other significant historical events of that time. He made a passing reference to Jesus.. It is widely consider credible by scholars.

There have been cleaned up forgeries of what he wrote that appeared later on. Josephus refers to Jesus in unflattering terms and calls him "The magician". The later forgeries re wrote this reference to make it look more sympathetic. But the actual reference, flattering or not, is credible.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 11:57:39 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

We already discussed Josephus, the oldest manuscripts for his works are from the 6-7th century, hardly a primary source

Josephus was born in the year 37. His works are not from the 6th century

Here is his wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

He meant the date of the physical manuscript copies we have today.

Then they werent written during his lifetime ??

Josephus was a near contemporary of Jesus and wrote extensively about the destruction of Jerusalem and other significant historical events of that time. He made a passing reference to Jesus.. It is widely consider credible by scholars.

There have been cleaned up forgeries of what he wrote that appeared later on. Josephus refers to Jesus in unflattering terms and calls him "The magician". The later forgeries re wrote this reference to make it look more sympathetic. But the actual reference, flattering or not, is credible.

No, Marc, I mean, manuscripts were copied, right?

You know?

So, the oldest copies of Josephus's original manuscript that physically exist today are from the 6th century.